The top women at Boston do not deserve prize money today!

Hahahahahahaha...Lancy, please, never EVER leave letsrun. (F*** me, I think you are "Again?")You kill me, Man. The lady's race was an awesome thing to watch. (And I'm not just Kara-hotnessing.)And Lancy, http://www.gifflix.com/files/7868c9eaa99d.gif

Skuj,

May I recommend not drinking before you post.

Thanks.

It was a stunning race. They've all run much faster. Who cares? Boston isn't a time course on a nice weather day.

Horatio wrote:

To those that think there's nothing bad about a 2:32 winning time in an "elite" marathon, my question to you is - where do you draw the line?

Would you think it's exciting and good competition if they ran 3:30 pace for 24 miles and then run the last 2 miles in 10:30?

Personally I would expect more in a top level race.

RD,

Ginger Ale, Man. F***s me up.

Hey guys, that 2004 Oly M5000 final....13:14.....what a bore, eh? Take those medals away.

Or the Worlds M800 from 2007.

Hahahahahahahaha.......

Check your history.

Skuj wrote:

It was a stunning race. They've all run much faster. Who cares? Boston isn't a time course on a nice weather day.

Skuj - you've changed. What's with all the profanity? Your posts sound totally different than a couple of years ago. Have you gone through major life changes in the past couple of years?

Do you still dance to Rock Lobster??

Oh, I forgot that 2:04 and 2:05s have been often done at Boston.

Do you know what you wrote wrote:

Check your history.

Skuj wrote:

It was a stunning race. They've all run much faster. Who cares? Boston isn't a time course on a nice weather day.

Horatio wrote:

Skuj - you've changed. What's with all the profanity? Your posts sound totally different than a couple of years ago. Have you gone through major life changes in the past couple of years?

Do you still dance to Rock Lobster??

Yes, (I'm a bit stressed today, and tired. Long story. But this thread cracks me up.)

and

Yes.

Then take BAA to task for not using rabbits, or for not giving more appearance money that would draw a deeper, more competitive women's field. Or both. Your expectations, however, fail to mesh with reality.

Thanks for the honest reply. Go for a 12 mile run to get rid of the stress.

Like I said, check your history. The record has not always been in the 2:04-2:05 range.

Skuj wrote:

Oh, I forgot that 2:04 and 2:05s have been often done at Boston.

Do you know what you wrote wrote:

Check your history.

OK, I checked the history.

Now what?

Look under the "notes" column. You'll see multiple world records.

Skuj wrote:

OK, I checked the history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_winners_of_the_Boston_Marathon

Now what?

Yeah, cus there were lots of Thons in 1905. This thread keeps getting better.

Do you know what you wrote wrote:

Look under the "notes" column. You'll see multiple world records.

Skuj wrote:

OK, I checked the history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_winners_of_the_Boston_Marathon

Now what?

Look a little further down the list.Thons? Sorry, I thought I was talking to someone respectable. I'm out.

Skuj wrote:

Yeah, cus there were lots of Thons in 1905. This thread keeps getting better.

***Waits 5min for him to return under a new alias and flame me.***We've become spoiled by fast times. What ever happened to the joy of deeply tactical races? That 45yr old chick who was complaining.....what happened to her when "it was on"? That's what I thought.

Do you know what you wrote wrote:

Thons? Sorry, I thought I was talking to someone respectable. I'm out.

Skuj wrote:

Hey guys, that 2004 Oly M5000 final....13:14.....what a bore, eh? Take those medals away.

13:14... that's about 37 seconds off the WR at 5k, so for 42k multiply by 4.2 and we get 2 minutes, 35 seconds... or you can express it as a percentage of time if you wish, in which case 13:14 is about 4.8% off the WR.

So if you are proposing that we use 4.8% or 5% as some sort of threshold, I don't think the OP would disagree.

However, unlike the OP, I don't support the idea of not paying the women - as someone already mentioned there are contractual obligations.

But does a race where the following things happen, belong in the World Marathon Majors?

* Faster runners weren't invited, including a 2:18 woman that wanted to run Boston and was told they "didn’t have space" for her.

* The IAAF report called the initial pace "sluggish".

* A 45 year old woman leads for a significant part of the race (just think how much slower it might have been if she didn't).

* Then near the end they finally raced for the finish with a winning time of 2:32:16

* It was the slowest Boston women's winning time since 1985

* Then after the race, one of the top 3 finishers said she felt she could run another major marathon in 6 days time.

I'm going to stick my neck out here and make a bold prediction that none of those things will happen at the London marathon on Sunday.

~~~~~~~~ wrote:

I'm going to stick my neck out here and make a bold prediction that none of those things will happen at the London marathon on Sunday.

Damn straight. Those pussy Brits have no sense of drama. Screw 'em!